Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
He is emphasizing a "front loaded" model.
My concern is pretty simple: young kids are being taught that scientists do not have enough faith in the scientific method, which produced Darwinian Thought.
No, Darwinian thought needs a referee and enforcement: lawyers and judges. People who have not earned science degrees, who couldn't explain why ice floats. But scientists are relying on these people to defend science. Why is it that you find lawyers and judges and the ACLU so trustworthy?
And what does that example mean in the eyes of little kids? That scientists don't have what it takes ... but lawyers do. You don't seem to find that odd or offensive. Maybe it is because the lawyers are actually scientists, but the words are different? Or, better, maybe it is the other way around, and very few of us take the time to see it that way?
Darwinian Ideas are great ... but not strong enough on their own merits to withstand scrutiny by folks who ask questions like the I.D. folks are.
Thus, instead of relying on a science teacher to teach the FLAWS of I.D., and thus reveal just how robust Darwinian thought really is, instead, science teachers are being taught to censor critical thinking, and muzzle questioners.
Taught by attorneys and judges that is ...;
In short, I'm accusing Darwinian apologists of emasculating the minds of young kids, before kids even have a chance to understand the metaphor, via the use of censorship.
I have a science degree, undergraduate. I have masters degree in science, graduate. Both from top universities.
This training was powerful and useful ... but I noticed something: Scientists are no different than folks like Madonna or the head of Chevron. The paths to Glory are irresistable to most, and the common rule is 'you stay on your path to the light, I'll stay on mine'.
Another common rule is this: 'Stifle debate ... it is good for the institution's survival.'
Creativity first comes from a willingness to ask questions and reason through them.
But Darwinian apologists find certain questions verboten ... especially if adults set that example in front of little kids. That is what I find so utterly outrageous: instilling fear of asking questions in young kids.
The scientific method, as the dogmatic method of finding out truth as it is currently encased, and taught to little kids, is the distilled essence of 'in the box' thinking.
Through testing, using the kind of systemic testing I learned during my training in science classes, I have discovered that truth can be revealed outside the box. I just had to get over the fear of being laughed at for asking questions that were 'not allowed' to be asked.
You ... promoting creativity I have never seen that from you. Your posts are always polite. But they are consistent in what you never discuss.
What I don't understand is this: where did you learn this way of thought? Why was it taught to you this way? Why do you never question it?
Why is your trust within it so consistent? Doubt - your posts never reveal a hint of it. Where does such confidence come from? Are your children that well adjusted?
Did you avoid the pitfall of ADD and meds that so many other parents couldn't prevent their kids from falling into?
Did your kids somehow find that regular binge drinking was not that bright of an idea from watching you? And how did they learn that?
When you spend Thanksgiving with your family in a couple of weeks, do you look forward to it? Why? Are you aware of how many people dread the 4 week period known as the 'Holidays'? Their family dynamics are so utterly painful to them. But, Scientists have little to say about this ... they have the same 4 weeks to endure as well.
When your son got older, did he spend all his time in strip clubs ... or did he find a wife whom he loves ... and how did he learn that?
Especially such that when she is alone with her friends, she honestly can say she feels loved?
Are you aware of how many women are taking anti-depressents, as compared to men?
Why is not talking about 'how our world works' so off limits? For it is the scientists who created the gift of Prozac, yes? But talking about the ramifications of this gift ... always verboten. I'll give you a scientific way to test what is 'approved' and 'disapproved' for open discussion among ordinary people: watch Oprah. Oprah is the true bell weather or our nation. (Especially, watch the subjects that day, after day, never, ever get discussed. Those omissions are every bit the arbiters of what is cool as are those topics that are comissioned for discussion.)
Science, advirtised as the only way to find objective truth, doesn't seem to be up to the task of addressing these kinds of questions.
If you have young kids, you are well aware that in your average neighborhood, enormous fear of sexual predators is pervasive ... how is this 'truth' good for all of us?
But no ... you never see the formation of any group of degreed scientists like "Scientists Against Sexual Abuse of Young Girls by Step Fathers". That just doesn't happen. Why not? Maybe because they fear so greatly what they might lose by fighting for right? The esteem of their 'peers'?
Scientists don't talk about this stuff, and don't ask these questions. It is 'outside' science, but more importantly, they'll get laughed at by their 'peers' in the community if they do.
The private sphere is .... well ... it is sort of like the rule 'don't mix philosophy or religion into science class'. Evolution, for example, is just 'science', and has nothing to do with how kids will reason once they learn about evolution, and 'survival of the fittest'.
Somehow, this rule is seen as 'good' for kids. But why it is 'good' for kids ... that never gets discussed. Instead, it is an a priori argument that we must just swallow. But your posts consistently show you are comfortable with that. How did your thinking get to be this calloused?
Scientists set an example js1138, by what they say and do ... and what they don't say and do. Ditto for rationalists, and ditto for Freepers like us.
Omissions and comissions are equally present and both are equally available to being imitated - regardless of protestations to the contrary. When you post your various comments and thinking ... you are honestly giving an example to imitate. An example to me. You are, in truth, an evangelist, whether you admit it or not.
You, and folks you sound very much like you, I did imitate. For a long time. I watched what was said, and what was avoided. I imitated both. Both on the stage of academia, and 'off stage' at the keg get togethers. And later in other organizations.
But I ask more questions now. I'm not fearful of looking stupid while I ask them. I have learned some really interesting 'facts'. Stuff that is never discussed at the keg get togethers. Stuff like 'why does any man find it worthwhile to be sexually faithful to just one woman'.
That question is a fair question ... it is even rational. But at the keg get togethers ... oh woe unto your reputation should you be overheard uttering such.
I never see you ask questions, js, outside the evo/creo sphere...; I never see you ask questions period. Why is that?
I mean, all you really are doing with all your energy you spend in your posts is speaking this: "come inside! The box here is cozy, it is warm. We won't laugh at you, and it is comfortable. You'll be one of the team. And you don't ever have to ask questions that make someone else feel uncomfortable."
What I don't understand is this: how did you learn to be so comfortable in extending this steady, unrelenting, constant posture of invitation to this box? Who trained this rigidity into you? Why did your training convince you that 'out of the box' thinking is so dangerous?
And given that your conviction about how totally right you are seems to be so unyielding, why not provide the revelation regarding where others might go to receive that training? I mean, in short, we should all follow your example - right? Thus we need the training you received.
Thus even I need that training ... but I need to know where to go, who to talk to, to receive it.
Just think: once that happens ...
once I'm subject to that kind of training ....
why, I'll sound like you....
My posts will sound like yours and then we'll both be 'right', right? One less enemy of conservatism, one more enemy soldier off the streets, one more hand added to the true ship. Good help is hard to find.
That would be 'good', yes? I mean silencing folks like myself is good, for your side, granted. But converting folks like myself, to spend energy the way you spend energy ... that is better, for your side, yes?
So ... I'm willing to say you are right and I am wrong. It is possible. So, how do I become like you? I must be trained like you were trained is all I can conclude. I must unlearn the impact of bad training, and subject myself to 'good' training and learn what you learned. (I suspect it is not related to native intelligence ... no offense, but you don't sound like you are super intelligent. You sound like you have average intelligence ... sort of like me.)
All I ask is that you identify the trainers, and the training centers I have to attend. Is that a fair question?
It would be a good thing if I sounded more like you, and spent my time and energy the way you do ... yes? And then I could spend my time learning what ID actually teaches ... and then post it ... and then score the points that should be scored for the 'right' side .... that would be a good thing ....
right?